|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
Ethics in Government: There Still is Hope
| Article
# : |
16424 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
5 / 1989 |
3,135 Words |
| Author
: |
Bruce Jennings
Bruce Jennings is associate for policy studies at the Hastings
Center in Briarcliff Manor, New York. |
Many of the difficulties that plague the way our polity handles ethical problems in government stem from the fact that we focus perhaps too much attention on the regulatory functions of ethical standards and too little on their civic functions. This is why ethical deliberations at moments of controversary or scandal are so often conceptually narrow and impoverished, and so rarely stimulate us to reflect on and consider afresh the fundamental values and public purposes that a given office or agency exists to serve. As Aristotle pointed out long ago, ethical performance (or practice) is like techincal performance in some ways: Both must be judged in relation to some end or goal, and the importance of being ethical is connected with the importance of the end that is at stake.
When we discuss government ethics solely in terms of filling out financial disclosure forms, setting up blind trusts, or avoiding the "appearance" of impropriety, then we make ethics seem petty and uninteresting (and we reinforce cynicism, to boot) by forgetting why it is important and what is important about it.
An example can be drawn from the recent flap over President Bush's nomination of former Sen. John Tower as secretary of defense, and the Senate's subsequent rejection of that nomination. One of the interesting things about this incident was that it was defined from the very outset as an "ethics" issue, which meant in essence that Tower's idelogical or policy views were not the focal points around which opposition to him formed.
As the debate about Tower's personal conduct and his association with defense contractors went along, it become apparent that Tower's
... (2000 of 19616 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
